01779-25 Tico v glasgowlive.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Atlan Tico complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that glasgowlive.co.uk breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “’Petrol bomb’ thrown through window of BMW parked outside Celtic pub”, published on 18 April 2025.

2. The article reported that a car parked outside a pub in the Glasgow area had caught fire, and included a photograph of a white car with flames around the windscreen area. It reported: “A car was firebombed outside a Lanarkshire pub popular with Celtic fans”; and that:

“a source told the Daily Record a petrol bomb was 'thrown through the front window' of the car in broad daylight. It's understood police are now probing the blaze.

The source said: ‘These [pictures] were taken outside The Cross Keys (Celtic pub) on Stewarton Street in Wishaw. A petrol bomb was thrown through the front window of a white BMW parked outside.’

Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service have been asked for comment.”

3. The headline also appeared on the publication’s homepage.

4. On the day of the article’s publication, the headline was amended to read: “Plush BMW goes up in flames outside Lanarkshire Celtic pub as fire crews tackle blaze”. The text of the article was also amended, to remove the portions quoted above.

5. The following was also added to the article:

“No-one was injured in the fire, which is not being treated as suspicious. It is believed it was started by a vehicle fault. A Police Scotland spokesperson said: ‘Around 6.05pm on Thursday, 17 April, 2025, police were made aware of a car on fire in Stewarton Street, Wishaw.

No-one was injured. The fire is not being treated as suspicious.’ Glasgow Live has approached the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service for more information. It was earlier reported the fire was caused by a petrol bomb.”

6. The complainant said that the headline was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to report that a “’petrol bomb’” had been “thrown through window of BMW parked outside Celtic pub”. He said this claim had not been verified ahead of publication and was not supported by the text of the article. He also said that, when he first viewed the article, it had been updated to remove all references to the ‘petrol bomb’ claim, although the headline on the homepage had not been updated.

7. He said that the reference to the incident occurring outside a “Celtic pub” was sensationalist ‘clickbait’ He said this suggested the fire was related to Sectarian tensions in Glasgow, which it was not.

8. The publication did not accept that the headline was inaccurate. It said the reference to a “‘petrol bomb’” was distinguished as a claim made by a source, as it appeared in single quote marks. It said this claim should be read in conjunction with the text of the article, which it said made clear that the claim originated from a source. At any rate, it said that the headline had been amended around two hours after publication to remove the reference to a ‘petrol bomb’.

9. The publication did not accept that the article itself was inaccurate to report that a source told the Daily Record a petrol bomb was 'thrown through the front window' of the car in broad daylight.” It said the article had been based on information provided by a source, who it was not able to identify as they wished to remain anonymous. However, it confirmed the source was a member of the public who had contacted the publication via social media about the incident, and had provided a photograph of the car in flames which appeared to show liquid on the car bonnet. It said the source had told the publication that they had witnessed someone pouring accelerant on the car.

10. The publication said it had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information as had relied on a source which it considered trustworthy given that they had provided first-hand photo evidence of the car on fire. The publication said it reported the source’s claims in good faith, as it had no reason to doubt that the source was providing accurate information. The publication said the photograph of the incident provided by the source also appeared to support the claim that the vehicle had been firebombed.

11. The publication said that, although it had had no reason to doubt the source’s claims, it had also taken further steps to verify the claims by contacting the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland before the article was published. When it contacted both organisations, it had advised that the publication has been told that there had been a firebombing and requesting a statement. It provided the email in question; the email was sent just after 10am on 18 April – ten minutes before the article’s publication - and referenced a “vehicle fire” which had occurred the prior day.

12. The publication confirmed it had published the article prior to receiving responses to either of its emails. It said that, as the incident had occurred on Good Friday, it did not expect a timely response from the media offices. It also said that where the story was a breaking news story, it did not consider it proportionate to wait for a response from either organisation before publishing the article.

13. Two hours after the article was published, Police Scotland responded to the publication’s request for comment, and confirmed that the fire was not being treated as suspicious, and that it was believed to be a vehicle fault The publication said that, shortly after receiving this email and at 12:37pm, it amended the article to its subsequent version, as outlined above.

14. However, the publication accepted that the first line of the article did not attribute the claim to a source – as it reported that a “car was firebombed outside a Lanarkshire pub popular with Celtic fans” – without qualification. Therefore, on 11 June, 43 days after the publication was made aware of the complaint, the publication published the following correction beneath the headline:

“A previous version of this article reported as fact that ‘A car was firebombed outside a Lanarkshire pub popular with Celtic fans.’ In fact, this information was originally provided by a source and had not been confirmed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It has since been confirmed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that the fire was caused by a mechanical failure of the vehicle. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly.”

15. The complainant did not accept the correction resolved his concerns, and expressed that these inaccurate claims had appeared on the publication’s website for several hours before being removed – he believed for around nine hours. He also said the correction didn’t address his concern that the use of the term “Celtic pub” in the original headline had implied the alleged petrol bomb was related to Sectarian tensions.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

16. On the basis of a single social media message from a member of the public, and absent any official confirmation or verification, the publication had reported claims that a “petrol bomb” had been thrown through the window of a car. Simply placing the claim within quote marks, or attributing it to a source, did not demonstrate sufficient care. Given the gravity of the claim, the publication had a duty to take steps to verify the details through additional trusted sources before reporting it. The Committee also noted that, by the publication’s own account, the source had not told it that he had seen someone throwing a petrol bomb at the car – rather, the source had said that they saw someone pouring liquid on the car.

17. Although the publication was able to evidence that it had contacted the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland prior to publication, it had published the article ten minutes after these emails were sent, and without awaiting a response or any confirmation as to the nature of the fire.

18. The Committee noted the publication’s position that as the article was a breaking news story which occurred over a bank holiday weekend and it considered it was unlikely to receive a prompt response, it had not considered it proportionate to wait for a response from either the Fire or Police services before publishing the article. The Committee disagreed, and considered that, given the gravity of the claim being made, it would have been appropriate to verify the claim being made by a single source prior to publishing the article, particularly in circumstances were the fire had occurred the previous day and was not ongoing.

19. At any rate, the Committee noted that the publication had not provided either the Fire or Police services with a deadline to respond to its request, and only waited 10 minutes after submitting their requests before publishing the article, which was not at all a reasonable time frame in which to expect a response.

20. In light of this, the Committee considered that the publication had not taken sufficient care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. There was therefore a breach of Clause 1 (i).

21. The Committee considered that the claim had the potential to mislead readers on a matter of great public importance – whether a “‘petrol-bomb’” had been thrown through the window of a car. This was allegation that a serious crime of a violent nature had been committed in a public area, and likely to be of great concern to local residents.

22. In addition, given the greater prominence and weight afforded to headlines, misleading information within headlines will generally be significant.

23. The Committee noted that the publication’s position that the article had been amended after two hours to remove the “‘petrol bomb’” claim, and the publication’s homepage. However, significantly inaccurate information must be corrected by way of a correction – simply removing the inaccurate information is not sufficient. Therefore, a correction was required under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

24. The Committee next considered whether the actions taken by the publication were sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii)

25. The article had been amended on the day of its publication to remove the inaccurate information, and to confirm that the fire was not being treated as suspicious. The updated article had also said “was earlier reported the fire was caused by a petrol bomb.” However, simply amending the article and referencing that “it was earlier reported” that the fire had been caused by a firebomb was not sufficient to flag to readers that it was the publication who had earlier reported this inaccurate claim, and that it was correcting earlier inaccurate coverage.

26. On June 11, 43 days after the publication was first made aware of the complaint and 6 days after IPSO’s investigation began, the publication added the following correction at the top of the article, under the headline:

“A previous version of this article reported as fact that "A car was firebombed outside a Lanarkshire pub popular with Celtic fans." In fact, this information was originally provided by a source and had not been confirmed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It has since been confirmed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that the fire was caused by a mechanical failure of the vehicle. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly.”

27. The Committee considered that the wording of the correction put the correct position on record and was duly prominent, appearing under the headline which was appropriate given the seriousness of the inaccuracy. However, the Committee noted that this correction was published six weeks after it was first made aware of the complaint, and nearly two months after it was informed by the police that the article was inaccurate. The Committee did not consider that this delay represented due promptness Therefore, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

28. Finally, the Committee considered the complainant’s concern that the article breached Clause 1 as it referred to the incident having occurred “outside [a] Celtic pub”. The complainant said this breached Clause 1 because the reference to the “Celtic pub” was ‘clickbait’, used to imply that the incident was related to Sectarian tensions, when it was not. The Committee noted however, that the complainant did not dispute that the pub was popular with fans of Celtic Football Club. As such, the Committee did not consider the reference to be inaccurate, misleading or distorted. Notwithstanding that the article breached Clause 1 by reporting claims that there had been a firebombing, there was no breach of Clause 1 arising from the reference to a Celtic pub.

Conclusions

29. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1(ii).

Remedial action required

30. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

31. The Committee considered both the headline and text of the article were inaccurate as they reported claims that a firebombing had occurred in Glasgow – when in fact, the fire had been caused by a firebomb. While the Committee recognised the gravity of this inaccuracy, it also noted that the publication had – within one day – removed the inaccurate information from its website, which served to mitigate the inaccuracy. On balance therefore, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy.

32. The correction should acknowledge that the original article reported inaccurate claims that a car was firebombed outside a pub. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that the fire was confirmed by Police Scotland to have been caused by a vehicle fault.

33. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

34. As the misleading information appeared in the headline to the article, the correction, which therefore gave it greater visibility and prominence, the correction should appear as a standalone correction, and a link should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way. As the article has already been amended, the correction should also be published beneath the headline of the article.

35. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 18/04/2025

Date complaint closed: 12/01/2026